A developer who has built a dozen residential towers in the relatively safe environs of the East Side now wants to plunge into uncertain waters downtown, with a new 90-story skyscraper that would be the second-tallest building in New York City — and only a block from ground zero.

Friends of the developer, Trevor Davis, describe him as a visionary for his designs for a building that would be 1,050 feet tall, 4 feet taller than the Chrysler Building, but 200 feet shorter than the Empire State Building, on a block at Broadway and Fulton Street.

But other real estate executives wonder if he is less a visionary than someone who is seeing things that are not there. After all, there are 15.4 million square feet of empty office space downtown, more than the entire commercial market in Atlanta. And after Sept. 11, a lot of people do not want to sleep or work at the top of a tall tower, especially one in that location.

Mr. Davis is undeterred. "I typically don't chase pipe dreams," he said, his soft accent hinting at his South African origin. "I'm looking seven years in advance. I think that downtown has all the ingredients to be the next attractive location, for residential and retail space, and a finite amount of office."

Designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox, the $680 million, 1.3-million-square-foot tower would be called 1 New York Place and combine shops on the bottom floors with 679,000 square feet of office space and 68 floors of apartments on top of the offices, on an entire block on Broadway, between Fulton and John Streets.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is planning to build a $750 million transit hub in the tunnels below the site, which would link the myriad subway and rail lines that run across Lower Manhattan. If that happens, Mr. Davis said, he could build overhead.

He said he recognized that the downtown office market was slow, but believed that residential and retail development would spur a downtown revival. Commercial projects, he said, will follow the creation of a new residential neighborhood.

"This is a very tall building that'll be a landmark," said Julie Menin, a restaurant owner and the founder of Wall Street Rising, a group active in rebuilding retail life downtown. "It'll restore the 24-7 vibrancy that is so sorely needed."

Mr. Davis's partners in the project are Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs, principals of RFR Holding, a German real estate company.

Charles A. Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, said he had met with Mr. Davis. "I'm betting on the future," Mr. Gargano said. "He's very enthusiastic about it."

Still, Mr. Davis faces enormous hurdles.

The first may be acquiring the site, comprising 18 parcels with seven owners, including Marble Collegiate Church. In anticipation of the transit project, which was under discussion well before the terrorist attack, Brookfield Financial Properties had considered buying the land in 2000 for a new skyscraper. Mr. Davis said he was in discussions with the owners. But one executive who knows the owners said the transportation authority was expected to condemn the block and might pay a higher price for the properties than a developer. "I don't know why they would talk" to Mr. Davis, the executive said.

There is also all that vacant office space downtown and more to come, while Wall Street lays off thousands.

Later this month, Larry A. Silverstein, the developer, plans to show off his plans to rebuild 7 World Trade Center, a tall skyscraper at Vesey and Greenwich Streets. Edward J. Minskoff, another developer, has been saying for more than a year that he would build a skyscraper nearby on city-owned land where he is the designated developer. But neither Mr. Minskoff nor Mr. Davis is likely to get financing for the projects because neither of them has a corporation willing to lease much of the space, a requirement of any lender. Mr. Silverstein has insurance money that will let him get off the ground.

Finally, there is a question of whether New Yorkers are still willing to pay a premium to live and work high up in the clouds. Richard A. Grasso, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, abandoned plans for 50-story tower over a new trading complex, out of fear that the 900-foot-tall tower would be a target.

Nathan Z. Dershowitz said lawyers and clerks in his office had become so nervous about being on the 79th floor of the Empire State Building that he had moved his small firm to the third floor of a building on Fifth Avenue. "There was a real level of discomfort about being up that high and of being a potential target," he said.

But as long as there is not another attack, real estate executives said, fears will continue to subside. "New York is a high-rise city," said Mitchell Moss, director of the Urban Research Center at New York University. "There is no better combination for urban living than being near the streets of Manhattan and close to heaven."

NoyokA

November 12th, 2002, 09:46 AM

Now were talking, this is NY's tallest proposal since Donald Trump and the 1980's. Great news!

NYguy

November 12th, 2002, 09:55 AM

I think Trump's NYSE proposal was the tallest, but this just shows there are still developers willing to build big - and a block from the WTC site....

NoyokA

November 12th, 2002, 10:01 AM

You're right. The tallest non Trump proposal since the 1930's.

Eugenius

November 12th, 2002, 10:07 AM

KPF is another reason to get excited. *Are there any renderings available?

NYatKNIGHT

November 12th, 2002, 10:26 AM

Hooray! That's what I'm talkin' about.

I think that downtown has all the ingredients to be the next attractive location...

It's good to hear this attitude, we've heard too much about fear lately.

A thousand-footer there would also help soften the impact of a much taller structure at World Trade.

JMGarcia

November 12th, 2002, 10:53 AM

Exciting news but the Times is being so negative about it if you read carefully and for that matter everything else to do with building downtown it seems.

I don't buy the "competition with their new tower" theories but I just can't explain why they are being so negative about downtown developement.

dbhstockton

November 12th, 2002, 12:08 PM

Very cool.

NYguy

November 12th, 2002, 12:21 PM

JM Garcia, that is just what I was thinking. *But there doesn't seem to be any negativity from them about their own future tower...

Finally, there is a question of whether New Yorkers are still willing to pay a premium to live and work high up in the clouds. Richard A. Grasso, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, abandoned plans for 50-story tower over a new trading complex, out of fear that the 900-foot-tall tower would be a target.

Nathan Z. Dershowitz said lawyers and clerks in his office had become so nervous about being on the 79th floor of the Empire State Building that he had moved his small firm to the third floor of a building on Fifth Avenue. "There was a real level of discomfort about being up that high and of being a potential target," he said.

For one thing, Richard Grasso is one person (who wanted to abandon the entire city btw, not just the tower). *And for another, there's the Trump World Tower, Bloomberg Tower, AOL/Time Warner towers. *I think the New Yorkers who are willing to buy such apartments in the clouds are plenty. *Since most of the floors in this building are residential, I would like to see how the NIMBYs are going to spin this one. *Especially after all the calls for more housing Downtown...

Fabb

November 12th, 2002, 01:43 PM

I agree.
The project makes sense.
Could be a way to relearn how to build tall in NY. Much like the effect the John Hancock Center had in Chicago.

Gulcrapek

November 12th, 2002, 04:01 PM

Sounds interesting, I'm not getting any hopes up but sounds interesting

If the offiuce glut argument eventually wins, he can simply replace those floors with more apartments and more floors

Kris

November 12th, 2002, 04:19 PM

Notice the ending. I don't see why the article shouldn't have addressed the issue as long as it came to the right conclusion.

NYatKNIGHT

November 12th, 2002, 05:42 PM

Yes, it is the right conclusion.

I see the rendering in the Times. It has a broad, low base covering the entire block with an angular atrium type roof in the middle. The tower rises out of one corner. It is slender, starts out boxy, then a minor setback, then rises very tall, slightly tapering to a flat top. I will attempt to scan it tomorrow if we can't get a rendering.

JeffreyNYC

November 12th, 2002, 05:57 PM

This is very exciting! I think this could be the start of what will revatalize downtown. It could also off set the fear of building the new WTC so tall!
We cannot let terrorist stop what this city is.....
skyscapers!

JMGarcia

November 12th, 2002, 06:36 PM

Here's a pic of the model from the Times - no detail is shown so we don't have any idea of the finish or facade. It's more of a massing model.

With the building being square almost to the top and about 100 ft higher than the spires of of 40 Wall and 60 Pine it will be even more of a mark on the skyline.

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze26pnp/FutlonSt.jpg

Zoe

November 12th, 2002, 06:50 PM

This could not be better news! *I too see this as the beginning for developers to come out with grander proposals now that someone has stepped out with something significant.

JMGarcia

November 12th, 2002, 06:53 PM

Here's a rough comparison with other NY Buildings

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze26pnp/FComp.jpg

NYC kid

November 12th, 2002, 07:05 PM

awesome. :D This is just what downtown needs!

JerzDevl2000

November 12th, 2002, 07:35 PM

Oh wow...I'm shocked - this isn't a gag, joke, pipe dream, story to grab headlines, or an evil communist plot! I think this will work well, it's in the middle of Lower Manhattan so the massing should look nice. One of the aruguments against the old (and) new WTC's is that they threw the skyline off balance. Shouldn't happen here.

Stern, NYguy, anyone...remember the Travelstead Tower in the late 80's? How tall would it have been? I think it would have been a bit taller than this if it was built. Too bad we got the Bear Stearns tower as a "compromise" of sorts....

NYguy

November 12th, 2002, 08:10 PM

I remember that proposal, it was around the same height or taller. *Looking at the model pic, I don't think the lowest portion of the model is a part of the building (or maybe it is, hard to tell). That gives a better idea of what the tower would look like.

Also, if the building was designed without the concept of the MTA's transit center concourse, it could possibly be pushed a little higher.

Looking at this Downtown map, the building would rise to the right of the Millinium Hilton (#6)

this is great! with this thing, the conde nast antenna, the nytvtower(jersey but to me counts as part of the nyc skyline area), nytimes and whatever is at the WTC sure to be over 1000 ft at least to pinnacle, together with ESB and chrysler this means that NYC will have 7 pinnacles of structures over 1000 ft!!!

Fabb

November 13th, 2002, 08:46 AM

It looks like a chimney and its factory.
Could be nice.

NYatKNIGHT

November 13th, 2002, 10:02 AM

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is planning to build a $750 million transit hub in the tunnels below the site, which would link the myriad subway and rail lines that run across Lower Manhattan. If that happens, Mr. Davis said, he could build overhead.

The project hinges on the transit hub, but I thought that was a go.

NYguy

November 13th, 2002, 10:11 AM

The transit hub is a go, there are actually 2 of them being built. *This one is the subway transit center on Broadway, and it is being built by the MTA. *With the Times, everything is up in the air. *I think Davis meant he can build with or without the transit center.

The state was going to condemn the properties on the site, but if the developer manages to assemble the properties that wouldn't be neccasary...

(Edited by NYguy at 10:12 am on Nov. 13, 2002)

NYatKNIGHT

November 13th, 2002, 10:55 AM

Right. The Intermodal Center was beneath the 16 acres, and the Transit Center was on Broadway. I thought the Transit Center was what everyone was referring to as the Downtown Grand Central Station, something grand in it's own right. We ought to start seeing designs for both.

chris

November 13th, 2002, 03:19 PM

This is great. I didn't catch the story in the Times.

Also yanni111 wrote:

...jersey but to me counts as part of the nyc skyline area...

I agree, I don't consider construction across the river to be a far off land. It is still the metro area, is culturally and economically still part of "us", not "them"... anyway, topic for another thread.

I'm eager to see a good rendering.

TLOZ Link5

November 13th, 2002, 04:46 PM

Does anyone have any news yet on when construction will start if the building is approved? *I'm very excited to hear that New York will very likely get a new 1000-footer. *With the NYTT, that would make for four buildings over 1000 feet in New York (although I sometimes have trouble considering the NYTT a thousand-footer, because of the tall spire).

Heh, my dad's worried that its address will be confused with One New York Plaza, where he works.

Gulcrapek

November 13th, 2002, 04:58 PM

Ew... 1 New York Plaza.. I'm sure he's glad he only sees the inside of the building most of the time

I like the height, the massing isn't bad, but I hope the final product has a bit more detail and a non-flat roof to it!

New York desperately needs a building like this that will take a risk and unflatten the skyline out. I wish more projects in midtown would be this tall instead of the 750-800 foot range.

NYatKNIGHT

November 14th, 2002, 02:20 PM

Good job! Maybe you could stick a spire on that ugly duckling until we get a better rendering.

Evan

November 14th, 2002, 02:43 PM

I really don't like this building. *I think it is ugly and non descripts. *It only stands out of the skyline because of its height. *However, the same thing can be said about the Trump World Tower, and I happen to like the TWT. *I guess that tower would also be somewhat of a triumph for New York, to build past 1000 feet. *The last 1000 footers were the WTC.

Eugenius

November 14th, 2002, 04:03 PM

I doubt that the actual building will have a drab grey color, so it's likely to look more interesting. *I am really excited about the effect the elevation will have on the downtown skyline.

yanni111

November 14th, 2002, 04:46 PM

thanks for the rendering in the skyline. Its location is perfect because it rises right next to a boring black box like liberty1 and does not block the good looking "older" area of downtown like 40 wall, american international, 20 exchange. And with whatever we get at the wtc over 1000 ft they would look great next to each other, it will soften the impact of the wtc just sticking out by itself

in that 2nd picture i also like the way the residential buildings in battery park city look, they have a nice color pattern going with pretty but not wild shades of red,orange,yellow and blue that work really good together. Those towers could have all been brown only so some nice thought was put into it.

Rich Battista

November 14th, 2002, 10:19 PM

great skyline pics of the building, that fills a little space, but not all of it

Fabb

November 15th, 2002, 10:38 AM

Right.
But it fills the space in a way that's respectful of the Downtown skyline.

Much better than the proposed NYSE tower by Childs. I'm only talking about the massing of course.

NYatKNIGHT

November 15th, 2002, 01:19 PM

This is one of those locations where a very tall building ought to be, I'm so glad they have seized the opportunity - unlike Bear Sterns and Conde Nast, both are tall but should have been taller in those locations. (Luckily, Conde Nast has a second chance).

Rich Battista

November 16th, 2002, 12:17 AM

what do you mean that Conde Nast has a second chance?????? Are you referring to 1 Bryant Park.

chris

November 16th, 2002, 12:59 AM

1 Bryant Park?

Fabb

November 16th, 2002, 06:41 AM

Quote: from Rich Battista on 12:17 am on Nov. 16, 2002
what do you mean that Conde Nast has a second chance?????? Are you referring to 1 Bryant Park.

No.
NYatKNIGHT is referring to the new antenna that will probably make it a thousand footer.

How come you don't know that, Rich ? It was a hot topic a few days ago.

Evan

November 16th, 2002, 11:01 AM

Since the Conde Nast is getting a really tall antenna, do you think that Durst will put an equally tall spire on 1 Bryant Park??? *I know the original buildings were going to be similar in height. *It's not a bad idea, although with the Times Spire, near by, it might over do it a little.

chris

November 16th, 2002, 12:12 PM

No, you can never have too many spires.
This is Gotham City, after all.

NoyokA

November 16th, 2002, 12:58 PM

I think a better idea would be to leave alone the Conde Nast Building. And build an office/broadcasting structure at One Bryant Park, 2000 feet. Something similar to 7SD, just not hideous.

Fabb

November 16th, 2002, 02:25 PM

Are you suggesting 7SD was hideous ?
I like your idea about a tall structure at 1 Briant Park. But it would take forever and the antenna is badly needed right now.

NoyokA

November 16th, 2002, 04:19 PM

yes, Adrian Smith is a horrible architect.

Fabb

November 17th, 2002, 07:23 AM

Well, I've always considered it an engineering marvel... which doesn't contradict your opinion about the architecture.
I was disappointed when doubts were expressed about its technical feasibility.

NoyokA

November 17th, 2002, 10:29 AM

If construction had started I doubt wether it could feasibly be rented. The core was exposed throughout, this is not a comfortable post 9-11 image .

Eugenius

November 17th, 2002, 08:42 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but what is 7SD and why is it hideous?

Fabb

November 18th, 2002, 09:54 AM

http://www.archidose.org/Apr01/som1.jpg

There are better renderings.

NYguy

November 18th, 2002, 10:32 AM

I actually liked 7SD...something similar may appear at the WTC, with the need still on for the 2,000 ft antenna....

Fabb

November 18th, 2002, 04:00 PM

http://www.skyscrapers.com/files/transfer/6/2002/09/160104.jpg

Something like that would be very ambitious, but wouldn't restore the skyline. Too thin.

NYguy

November 18th, 2002, 07:40 PM

Depends on what else was built with it. *The new WTC won't be as big and bulky as the old Trade Center...

Evan

November 18th, 2002, 07:45 PM

Is it really that practical to have a such a tall building, 478 meters, but only 1.9 million square feet? *I don't see such a tall and slender building being that economical either. *Each tower of the WTC had roughly 4.3 million square feet. *The sears tower has nearly that much office space too. *

Fabb

November 19th, 2002, 02:05 PM

I agree.
That's why the new WTC should be somewhat bulky. And tall. Then, basically inspired by the former one...

chris

November 19th, 2002, 02:34 PM

I don't see the World Trade Center redevelopment as any one building or one tower, or for that matter even a two tower development. Regardless of my desirte to see a memorial tower incorporated in to the site, I only see that as one component. There are 16 acres on the former WTC site alone, plus redevelopment of some of the surrounding area is called for as well. I think several towers could/should be involved and not neccessarily one development (one plan, but multiple developements)...

I don't understand why everyone seems to see this as a one solution problem. I thought most of what came out of the NYT magazine proposal was crap, but at the same time it showed how a whole variety of things could come out of this. As crappy as they were, at least even the LMDC's first proposals weren't about 1 building. Can anyone manage to get past that? This isn't about a building.

Secondly, while I understand it to be the name of the former bulding, I don't really think any of the new structures ought to be called the "World Trade Center". Truth be told, the name wasn't very true to purpose anyway, whatever the intent was when it was built. There are offices all over Manhattan that contain headquarters and offices of global companies, yet the World Trade Center by comparison had almost none. Ultimately it simply became an office building, mostly for a mix of government offices and American banks. I don't think any of the new buildings should be branded with the stigma of the title World Trade Center.

NoyokA

November 19th, 2002, 03:01 PM

There are offices all over Manhattan that contain headquarters and offices of global companies, yet the World Trade Center by comparison had almost none. Ultimately it simply became an office building, mostly for a mix of government offices and American banks. I don't think any of the new buildings should be branded with the stigma of the title World Trade Center.

Wrong, I cant remember the exact number of international buisnesses off hand but it was in the thousands. I have it saved with my wordperfect, but its curropted. So just take my word for it.

(Edited by Stern at 3:01 pm on Nov. 19, 2002)

chris

November 19th, 2002, 03:22 PM

Maybe I should have phrased it, "by comparison, had very few."

The point is that the government of the state of New York had 50 floors in one of the twin towers and many offices in other buildings in the complex, not even including the federal government offices in the complex. The largest private tenant was Morgan Stanley who also had 50 floors. The Bank of China was one of, possible the largest foreign tenant. Most of the space was rented to American Banks and government offices. The World Trade Center was noble in its intent and a grand building but was no more a center of international trade than any other large office complex here in Manhattan. I don't consider that a bad thing, I consider it a good thing. It says how globalized the economy here is in New York.

(Edited by chris at 3:24 pm on Nov. 19, 2002)

Giovanni

November 19th, 2002, 06:17 PM

I hope that any tower or other building constructed at the WTC sites is impressive architecturally. *It would be a disappointment to see mediocre construction in the area. * *

NYguy

November 19th, 2002, 06:36 PM

Quote: from Fabb on 2:05 pm on Nov. 19, 2002
I agree.
That's why the new WTC should be somewhat bulky. And tall. Then, basically inspired by the former one...

I disagree completely. *Bulky in the lower portions, maybe. *But the great towers of Downtown are the slender, soaring ones. *Not the bulky, boxy towers like the ones that now line the East River, and destroy the skyline.

Also, everyone agrees that it will be difficult (not impossible) to lease the upper floors of such a tower, so I don't believe there will be such a huge concentration of space in the upper floors.

That tower certainly looks great superimposed in that photo. *I hope it gets built. *Maybe the conomy will turn around and a there will be a marker for such tall buildings.

Fabb

November 20th, 2002, 08:13 AM

It doesn't seem so slender from that angle.
The location is perfect for a building of that size.

TLOZ Link5

November 20th, 2002, 04:50 PM

Agreed. *Quite a wonderful rendering. *I really hope that this building is constructed; so far the NIMBYs haven't protested.

Eugenius

November 20th, 2002, 08:03 PM

I think that area is purely a business district, with no real residential buildings to speak of. *The NIMBYs just don't live there, fortunately. *The only noise I can think of could come from the business owners on the site, but their buildings are likely to be condemned anyway.

TLOZ Link5

November 20th, 2002, 08:12 PM

Well, Battery Park City is pretty close, and I know a lot of nearby Class-B buildings (such as the Park Row Building) have been either partially or completely converted into apartments. *The Financial District has a small residential population in comparison to the huge amount of office workers (about 15,000 to 300,000, I believe), but it's growing steadily.

As for the present owners of the property, I'd assume that some would be a bit adamant about being evicted. *As far as I've heard, nothing there is landmarked, but one or two have been selected for consideration. *The worst that could happen, IMHO, is if one of those owners successfully lobbies for landmark designation.

NYguy

November 21st, 2002, 10:28 AM

NY Times...

Developer Stalks His Prize in the Wilds Downtown

By ROBIN FINN

FIRST, and second, impressions indicate that Trevor Davis, who last week announced a bold plan to erect Manhattan's second-tallest skyscraper just a block from the ghost of the twin towers, really likes his trophies. And they don't necessarily have to be buildings.

Unless the lions, leopards and polar bears in that photo montage in his office are playing possum, he evidently moonlights as the last of the great white hunters. No wonder Teddy Roosevelt is a big hero, and we're not talking presidential acumen, we're talking bagging big game and carrying a big gun.

That much is obvious even before the gentlemanly developer, bear-size himself, makes a jaunty entrance — Mr. Davis, 48, retains his South African speech mannerisms and accompanies bone-rattling handshakes with a crisp "Cheers" coming or going — and settles down at a red lacquer conference table at 400 Park Avenue.

Everybody already knows big urban developers like to leave big urban footprints. Mr. Davis, who builds luxury East Side residential towers with a penthouse-for-everyone persona, is no exception.

"I don't get egotistical about it, but I've been fortunate enough to be able to say I've left my mark on New York City," he says, riding the fence between modesty and its opposite.

He's not done making his mark. And unlike some developers, he does it without stamping his name on his creations. "It's too vain, putting your name on a building," he demurs. "I don't even like to buy things that have labels on them."

First things first. Did he kill his co-stars in those safari photos or are they just tranquilized?

Mr. Davis pours all 6 feet 4 1/2 inches of himself into a semi-apologetic shrug and rakes a hand through the front of his bristly, graying hairdo, which sticks up skyscraper straight. Or perhaps it got that way from the shock of being charged by a lion while on safari in Zimbabwe last year. It was, he says, an old lion, one ripe for legal culling; he does not kill young animals, "just the lonely old guys whose best years are behind them." Pays for the privilege. Mr. Davis tracked this particular king of beasts three days before it turned the tables and confronted him; so he shot it. Same thing happened with an elephant, a bull so massive Mr. Davis recalls his trusty guide turning tail and running. But not Mr. Davis.

"Survival is the point of business and of life, and I've kind of applied the fundamentals of what I learned from hunting to the way I do business; not so much the kill part," he says, with a conspiratorial chuckle, "but about taking in everything in the environment around you. You develop a sixth sense, sort of."

The odd woven bracelet on his wrist is all that's left of the elephant. Its meat fed scores of hungry villagers. The hair of his bracelet came from its tail. "A trophy," he says and chuckles.

As regards his less furry trophies, these walls are papered with so many mock-ups of skyscrapers — prime among them First New York Place, the $680 million, 90-story retail-office-luxury-living complex he has proposed for downtown, at Broadway and Fulton Streets — that the room has the feel of a single-theme art gallery. Skyscrapers are us.

That's the mantra of RFR Davis, the collaboration between Mr. Davis and two German-born entrepreneurs, Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs. They teamed up in 1995 when he bought his first plot, a white elephant at 64th Street and Second Avenue, for $2.5 million.

After decorating the Upper East Side with a dozen swank residential destinations like the Impala, the Seville and the Empire, and creating 425 Fifth Avenue, a tower he calls a sister to the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings, he has seen the future — and it is downtown.

"We've always been long-term players, and there's no question there's a market developing downtown that's going to be very different in 5, 7, 10 years' time than what's there today, and as long as people can get over what's there today, it's going to be a pretty exciting place," he says.

HE insists tomorrow's New Yorkers won't be superstitious about living in a downtown skyscraper. "People have a great propensity in this city to forget bad things quickly," he says. "Well, not forget, but to recover; I don't see downtown being some somber mausoleum."

Zzed

November 21st, 2002, 11:00 AM

well i think it is hideous ... the height is the only good thing about it.

JMGarcia

November 21st, 2002, 11:08 AM

Those pics were made by Just Rich, they are not of the actual building, only a rough approximation of its shape, not detailing or facade.

So, I think its too soon to say it hideous yet.

Eugenius

November 21st, 2002, 11:12 AM

Are you talking about the shape or the color? *I like the slightly pyramidal shape, and I think the final product will not be drab grey. *If its skin is anything like the Seville or 425 5th, it could be very interesting.

NYatKNIGHT

November 21st, 2002, 11:27 AM

Right - the rendering had it plain white with no details. We have no idea what the color, texture, or even what the real shape will be. What we do know is that a building that tall would look great in that location.

Fabb

November 21st, 2002, 11:48 AM

Quote: from Eugenius on 11:12 am on Nov. 21, 2002
If its skin is anything like the Seville or 425 5th, it could be very interesting.

You mean retro ?
Hopefully it'll be futuristic.

Derek2k3

November 21st, 2002, 02:02 PM

There's a picture in the Times with him and renderings on the wall. Only one of the renderings of 1NYP is visible, though barely.

NoyokA

November 21st, 2002, 02:58 PM

cool...

NYguy

November 21st, 2002, 03:31 PM

Quote: from Derek2k3 on 2:02 pm on Nov. 21, 2002
There's a picture in the Times with him and renderings on the wall. Only one of the renderings of 1NYP is visible, though barely.

I looked at the photo, but the tower in the photo appears to have a slightly different shape if its the same building. *Its a tall one, whatever it is.

NoyokA

November 21st, 2002, 06:54 PM

these walls are papered with so many mock-ups of skyscrapers — prime among them First New York Place, the $680 million, 90-story retail-office-luxury-living complex he has proposed for downtown, at Broadway and Fulton Streets

It has to be it. The rendering is unclear, but I thought I saw notched corners, tappering at the top and bottom.

JeffreyNYC

December 5th, 2002, 03:05 PM

Does anybody have anymore news on this?
I haven't heard anymore myself.
I know approvals take time but I'm too excited to wait!

Ptarmigan

December 8th, 2002, 03:25 PM

Not good enough. It should be the exact thing before 9/11. The World Trade Center should be rebuilt.

TLOZ Link5

December 8th, 2002, 08:49 PM

It's proposed for a different site than the World Trade Center, though.

Rich Battista

January 2nd, 2003, 01:50 PM

supposedly they are pushing for a fast approval, i have not heard anything sinse december 19th.

NoyokA

January 2nd, 2003, 03:36 PM

Really? Rich I need to know who you heard this from?

Rich Battista

January 2nd, 2003, 04:47 PM

I have heard that Davis is trying to push a fast approval from one of the lower members on the LMCB. He said that the board will most likely stall the construction until they officially plan out the WTC site. They have taken Davis' project into considoration, but doubtful if they give him an approval as of now. Even though the guy is a file messenger, i trust his thoughts, he knows some of what goes on behind closed doors.

NYguy

January 3rd, 2003, 05:20 PM

Quote: from Rich Battista on 4:47 pm on Jan. 2, 2003
I have heard that Davis is trying to push a fast approval from one of the lower members on the LMCB. He said that the board will most likely stall the construction until they officially plan out the WTC site. They have taken Davis' project into considoration, but doubtful if they give him an approval as of now. Even though the guy is a file messenger, i trust his thoughts, he knows some of what goes on behind closed doors.

That sounds reasonable. *I didn't expect to hear anything about it until after the WTC site plan is set. *It's proposed for the site of the new subway transit center on Fulton, an extension of the WTC project. *It remains to be seen though, whether the state or the developer will acquire the land for the site....

(Edited by NYguy at 5:21 pm on Jan. 3, 2003)

Rich Battista

January 10th, 2003, 07:22 PM

yes well, i personally do not think the project will go through at least until 2006. It seems that there has been enough emphasis put on this project, its up to the downtown board on how they are going to work the whole thing.

markmartin6

January 11th, 2003, 11:52 AM

Beautiful beautiful beautiful!

TLOZ Link5

January 25th, 2003, 06:30 PM

One of many blurbs from RNN (Regional News Network, http://www.rnntv.com/NewsChooser/pages/multi_column/fullstory.cfm?prm_StoryID=21920)

Proposed Tower

"November 12, 2002 - A developer wants to build a 90-story skyscraper that would be the second-tallest building in New York City. The New York Times reports that the proposed 1.3 million-square-foot tower, which would be built one block from the World Trade Center site. It would combine 68 floors of apartments with office space and shops. The developer, Trevor Davis, said the building would be 1,050 feet tall, four feet higher than the Chrysler Building and 200 feet shorter than the Empire State Building. The tower would be called One New York Place. Davis says downtown has all the ingredients to be the next attractive location, for residential space. Davis has built a dozen residential towers in Manhattan's East Side. The $680 million tower would take up an entire block on Broadway, between Fulton and John streets. The site comprises 18 parcels with seven owners. Davis said he was currently discussing the purchase of the property with the owners."

Aside from Stern's site and discussions here on this forum, this is all I could get from Google.

Ptarmigan

January 26th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Not a bad idea.

Agglomeration

January 26th, 2003, 11:37 PM

It's an excellent idea, of course it would be much more attractive alongside the new 110-floor WTC Twins, but that's my opinion.

Ptarmigan

January 26th, 2003, 11:49 PM

Quote: from Agglomeration on 10:37 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
It's an excellent idea, of course it would be much more attractive alongside the new 110-floor WTC Twins, but that's my opinion.

I agree with that!

Derek2k3

March 21st, 2003, 11:36 PM

"In anticipation of the transit project, which was under discussion well before the terrorist attack, Brookfield Financial Properties had considered buying the land in 2000 for a new skyscraper."

I love this thread - maybe it's because it's a breath of fresh air from overkill...of recent news/developments.

Great pics/shots Derek2k3! I love cutaways and the subway map, because it's nice to see the larger context of a project (or dead project). The straphangers forum is where I make my case for a 4 TRACK Second Ave. Subway, which would tie nicely into downtown. The Lexington Ave. Line is at 110-115% capacity and, downtown is going to need all the transit it can get. Older class B office space must be converted to apartments to get the vacancy rate down, but this and other new projects will have to make new space to attract life.

For God sakes, 1 New York Place and anything tall must be built in New York City. Tall buildings do not a city make, but let's face it, isn't it the American way to push boundaries? Angus Kree Gillespie's book "Twin Towers" had a new chapter written after 9/11. To boil it down, he thinks the skyscraper is dead!

I have news for you Mr. Gillespie: It's alive and well! Houston, Kuala Lumpur, possibly London, and yes...that fantasy playground of Las Vegas has 1,000 footers and doing quite well. They are not targets like New York City, but no one would dare say that if any of them were ever attacked. Surely we can reach up like that too!

I refuse to let New York stand idly by and let fear control us. Those of us that demise the tall building may as well petition for the dismantling of Sears and Empire State.

As for me and many of us, we will look forward.
1 New York Place is a great start and will give us pride, hope, and jump-start a sagging downtown. Let's make the right choice and build it!

P.S. - The manifesto is coming!

TLOZ Link5

March 22nd, 2003, 01:57 PM

London is on the road to building a 1000-footer; it doesn't have one quite yet.

Bk Italian 123

March 24th, 2003, 10:19 AM

i would like the tower, but this is old news. *The proposal has been out since 2002. :)

Bag of Donuts

March 24th, 2003, 04:46 PM

What are the chances of this actually getting built? I hope it does, but i have doubts.

billyblancoNYC

March 24th, 2003, 05:04 PM

I dunno, there seems to be a real push for residential DT, and if the subsidies are there...

NyC MaNiAc

March 24th, 2003, 07:55 PM

yes, there has been a residential push. But, Lower Manhattan needs more business' downtowns.

Residential Towers are fine, but Office buildings are where it's at, IMHO, and thats something Downtown needs. Not like Downtown dosn't have loads already, but they havn't built a big 'scraper for a decade, no? Maybe mixed use would be appropriate.
It just seems that office buildings are better made (design wise), save for something like TWT...

Am I wrong in thinking office buildings are better then residential buildings?

NoyokA

March 24th, 2003, 08:01 PM

This is mixed us . For tall buildings it is the wave of the future.

billyblancoNYC

March 24th, 2003, 11:15 PM

Yeah, I think that the "super-talls" will mostly be mixed-use, with residential being co-ops and condos. *I think there's less risk involved when you could sell some high-floor casas and then rent the bottom 1/2 for offices. *I dunno, it's not bad to have both, but DT does need new offices and businesses, fast. *Hopefully the residential will somehow attract more businesses (close commutes, the restaurants, etc that residential draws).

NyC MaNiAc

March 24th, 2003, 11:58 PM

Your right, billyblancoNYC.

I think Downtown needs the residential which will bring everything you mentioned...then office buildings would begin to go up and Downtown would be back to normal after being hard hit by 9/11. 7WTC too will help Downtown, but the residential could serve to get more super 'scrapers up.

PHLguy

February 6th, 2004, 10:15 PM

does anyone know anything about this building and most important, its probablility of being built

Gulcrapek

February 6th, 2004, 10:39 PM

To learn about the topic of a thread, one usually reads the thread, which in this case has 99 other possible sources of information.

PHLguy

February 6th, 2004, 11:04 PM

well gul,

the thread is over a year old...i wanted newer info instead of smart alec remarks

Gulcrapek

February 6th, 2004, 11:31 PM

If there was anything new, it would be here.

ZippyTheChimp

February 6th, 2004, 11:39 PM

Don't be lazy. Search around. In fact, you posted a few weeks ago in a Goldman Sachs thread that went off-topic - about 1 NY Place. It pops up all over. Wishful thinking I guess.